naval surface warfare center panama city division … · 2014-04-29 · annual marine species...
Post on 25-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ANNUAL MARINE SPECIES
MONITORING REPORT
2013
FOR THE
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
PANAMA CITY DIVISION (NSWC PCD)
STUDY AREA
Submitted To:
Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226
In accordance with:
21 January 2012 - 20 January 2014 Letter of Authorization
for NSWC PCD Mission Activities;
50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 218, Subpart S
September 2013
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
ANNUAL MARINE SPECIES
MONITORING REPORT
2013
FOR THE
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
PANAMA CITY DIVISION (NSWC PCD) STUDY AREA
Submitted To:
Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226
In accordance with:
21 January 2012 - 20 January 2014 Letter of Authorization
for NSWC PCD Mission Activities;
50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 218, Subpart S
SEPTEMBER 2013
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
II. NSWC PCD MISSION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................5
III. NSWC PCD MONITORING ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR THE
REPORTING PERIOD .....................................................................................................8
IV. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................14
V. LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................16
VI. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Monitoring Commitments under NSWC PCD Final Rule, LOA, and BO for
FY 2012-2014. .................................................................................................................................5
Table 2. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Observation Summary for Q-20 Sonar Tests During April-May 2013 in the NSWC PCD
Study Area. ......................................................................................................................................9
Table 3. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Observation Summary for SSAM and BOSS Sonar System Tests During June 2013 in the
NSWC PCD Study Area. ...............................................................................................................10
Table 4. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Observation Summary for REMUS Sonar System Tests During July 2013 in the NSWC
PCD Study Area. ............................................................................................................................11
Table 5. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Observation Summary for AMNS System Tests Involving Detonations During October
2012 in the NSWC PCD Study Area. ............................................................................................12
Table 6. U.S. Navy MMO Sighting Data from Sonar and Detonation Test Events in the
NSWC PCD Study Area. ...............................................................................................................13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. NSWC PCD Study Area: Gulf of Mexico. .......................................................................6
Figure 2. NSWC PCD Study Area: Nearshore and St. Andrew Bay. ..............................................7
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program. 2010 Update.
Appendix B – NSWC PCD Mission Activities Monitoring Plan
Appendix C – May 2013 Aerial Monitoring Survey Trip Report
Appendix D – June 2013 Aerial Monitoring Survey Trip Report
Appendix E – July 2013 Aerial Monitoring Survey Trip Report
Appendix F – October 2012 Aerial Monitoring Survey Trip Report
Appendix G – Information on Sightings Recorded by U.S. Navy MMOs Onboard Vessels
during Test Events Involving Sonar and Detonations in the NSWC PCD Study Area
Appendix H – U.S. Navy Lookout Comparison Study Data Collection Protocol
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFTT Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
AMNS Airborne Mine Neutralization System
AMR Adaptive Management Review
BO Biological Opinion
BOSS Buried Object Scanning Sonar
BSS Beaufort Sea State
CNO Chief of Naval Operations
DON Department of the Navy
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESA Endangered Species Act
FY Fiscal Year
HFAS high-frequency active sonar
hr hour(s)
ICMP Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program
ID identification
ITA Incidental Take Authorization
km kilometer(s)
LMMO liaison marine mammal observer
LO lookout
LOA Letter of Authorization
m meter(s)
MFAS mid-frequency active sonar
MMO marine mammal observer
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
N45 Energy and Environmental Readiness Division
nmi nautical mile(s)
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NSWC PCD Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division
NUWCDIVNPT Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport
OEIS Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
ONR Office of Naval Research
OPAREA Operating Area
OT observation team
PAM passive acoustic monitoring
Q-20 AN/AQS-20A Mine Reconnaissance Sonar System
RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation
REMUS Remote Environmental Monitoring Units
R/V Research Vessel
SAG Scientific Advisory Group
SSAM2 Small Synthetic Aperture Minehunter 2
TTS temporary threshold shift
U.S. United States
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 iv
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 1
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
The United States (U.S.) Navy developed Range Complex and Study Area monitoring plans to
provide marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring as required under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In order to
issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) for an activity, Section 101(A)(5)(A) of the MMPA
states that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must set forth “requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 Code
of Federal Regulations Section 216.104(a)(13) note that requests for Letters of Authorization
(LOAs) must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and
reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present. While the ESA does
not have specific monitoring requirements, recent Biological Opinions (BOs) issued by NMFS
also have included terms and conditions requiring the U.S. Navy to develop a monitoring
program. In addition to Range Complex and Study Area monitoring plans, a monitoring plan for
Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) mission activities was
developed for protected marine species, primarily marine mammals and sea turtles, as part of the
environmental planning and regulatory compliance process associated with a variety of research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities. As part of the issuance of the NSWC
PCD Mission Activities LOA in 2010 (NMFS 2010), the U.S. Navy published the NSWC PCD
Mission Activities Monitoring Plan (Department of the Navy [DON] 2010a).
Based on discussions with NMFS, Range Complex and Study Area monitoring plans were
designed as collections of focused “studies” to gather data that will attempt to address the
following questions, which are described more fully in the NSWC PCD Mission Activities
Monitoring Plan:
1. Are marine mammals and sea turtles exposed to mid-frequency active sonar
(MFAS)/high-frequency active sonar (HFAS), especially at levels associated with
adverse effects (i.e., based on NMFS’s criteria for behavioral harassment, temporary
threshold shift (TTS), or permanent threshold shift)? If so, at what levels are they
exposed?
2. If marine mammals and sea turtles are exposed to MFAS/HFAS, do they redistribute
geographically as a result of continued exposure? If so, how long does the redistribution
last?
3. If marine mammals and sea turtles are exposed to MFAS/HFAS, what are their
behavioral responses to various levels?
4. Is the U.S. Navy’s suite of mitigation measures for MFAS/HFAS (e.g., Protective
Measures Assessment Protocol) effective for avoiding TTS, injury, and mortality of
marine mammals and sea turtles?
Monitoring methods proposed for the NSWC PCD Study Area, similar to those in the Range
Complex and Study Area monitoring plans, include a combination of research elements designed
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 2
both to support study area-specific monitoring and to contribute information to a larger U.S.
Navy-wide science-based program. These field methods include visual surveys from vessels or
airplanes, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), and marine mammal observers (MMOs) aboard
U.S. Navy platforms participating in the test event. Each monitoring technique has advantages
and disadvantages that vary temporally and spatially, and each method supports one particular
study objective better than another. The U.S. Navy uses a combination of techniques so that
detection and observation of marine animals is maximized, and meaningful information can be
derived to answer the research questions proposed above.
In addition to the NSWC PCD Mission Activities Monitoring Plan and the Fleet-funded
monitoring plans described above, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Energy and
Environmental Readiness Division (N45) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) have
developed coordinated Science & Technology and Research & Development programs focused
on marine mammals and sound. These include an extensive program of basic research and
exploratory development at the ONR as well as the U.S. Navy’s Living Marine Resources
applied research program, managed by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Both
programs are focused on delivering the data and technologies needed by the U.S. Navy and
others to minimize potential risks to marine mammals and sea turtles from human activities like
military training and testing.
The U.S. Navy’s Living Marine Resources applied science program includes the following focus
areas:
Marine Mammal Distribution and Abundance Determination
Criteria and Thresholds to Measure Effects of U.S. Navy-Generated Sounds
Improving Monitoring Techniques
Sound Field Characterization
Total investment in these programs has exceeded $230 million for protected marine species
research from 2004 to 2012. These programs currently fund several significant projects relative
to potential operational impacts to marine mammals ongoing within some U.S. Navy Range
Complexes. Additional information on these programs can be found at the U.S. Navy’s Green
Fleet – Energy, Environment and Climate Change website (http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/
environment/marine-mammals-ocean-resources).
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program
The Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) provides the overarching
framework for coordination of the U.S. Navy’s monitoring (DON 2010b). It has been developed
in direct response to permitting requirements for U.S. Navy ranges, which are established in the
various MMPA Final Rules, ESA Consultations, BOs, and applicable regulations. As a
framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to those activities on ranges and operating
areas (OPAREAs) for which the U.S. Navy has sought and received ITAs.
The ICMP is intended for use as a planning tool to focus U.S. Navy monitoring priorities
pursuant to ESA and MMPA requirements. Top priority will always be given to satisfying the
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 3
mandated legal requirements across all ranges. Once legal requirements are met, any additional
monitoring-related research will be planned and prioritized using guidelines provided by the
ICMP, consistent with availability of both funding and scientific resources. As a planning tool,
the ICMP is a “living document” and will be routinely updated as needed. Initial areas of focus
for improving U.S. Navy protected marine species monitoring in 2012 and 2013 focused on
development of a Strategic Plan to be incorporated as a major component of the ICMP to guide
investments and help refine specific monitoring actions to more effectively and efficiently
address ICMP goals and objectives.
The ICMP is evaluated through the Adaptive Management Review (AMR) process to: (1) assess
progress, (2) provide a matrix of goals and objectives for the following year, and (3) make
recommendations for refinement and analysis of the monitoring and mitigation techniques. This
process includes conducting an annual AMR meeting at which the U.S. Navy and NMFS jointly
consider the prior-year goals, monitoring results, and related scientific advances to determine if
modifications are needed to more effectively address U.S. Navy monitoring program goals.
Modifications to the ICMP that result from AMR discussions are incorporated into a revision to
the ICMP and submitted to NMFS.
Under the ICMP, monitoring measures prescribed in range-/project-specific monitoring plans
and U.S. Navy-funded research relating to the effects of U.S. Navy testing activities on protected
marine species should be designed to accomplish one or more of the following top-level goals as
prescribed in the current revision of the ICMP (DON 2010b):
a) An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammals and/or
ESA-listed marine species in the vicinity of the action (i.e., presence, abundance,
distribution, and/or density of species).
b) An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of
marine mammals and/or ESA-listed species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated
with the action (e.g., sound, explosive detonation, or expended materials), through better
understanding of one or more of the following: (1) the nature of the action and its
surrounding environment (e.g., sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient
noise levels); (2) the affected species (e.g., life history or dive patterns); (3) the likely
co-occurrence of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed marine species with the action (in
whole or part); and/or (4) the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the
stressor for the marine mammal and/or ESA-listed marine species (e.g., age class of
exposed animals or known pupping, calving, or feeding areas).
c) An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals or ESA-listed
marine animals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors
associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or
received level).
d) An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual
stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: (1) the long-term
fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) the population, species, or stock (e.g., through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival).
e) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring
measures, including increasing the probability of detecting marine mammals (through
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 4
improved technology or methodology), both generally and more specifically within the
safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation).
Improved detection technology resulting from these goals will be rigorously and
scientifically validated prior to being proposed for mitigation, and should meet
practicality considerations (e.g., engineering, logistic, fiscal).
f) A better understanding and record of the manner in which the authorized entity complies
with the MMPA ITA and ESA incidental take statement.
CNO N45 is responsible for maintaining and updating the ICMP, as necessary, reflecting the
results of current regulatory agency rulemaking, adaptive management, best available science,
improved assessment methodologies, and more effective protective measures. This is done as
part of the AMR process, in consultation with U.S. Navy technical experts, Fleet Commanders,
and Echelon II Commands as appropriate. The ICMP (updated in December 2010) is provided in
Appendix A.
Report Objective
Design of the NSWC PCD Mission Activities Monitoring Plan represented part of a new U.S.
Navy-wide and regional assessment, and as with any new program, there are many coordination,
logistic, and technical details that continue to be refined. The scope of the Range Complex and
Study Area monitoring plans was to lay out the background for monitoring, as well as to define
initial procedures to be used in meeting certain study objectives derived from NMFS-U.S. Navy
agreements.
Overall, this report serves two main objectives:
1. Present data and results from the U.S. Navy‐funded marine mammal and sea turtle
monitoring conducted in the NSWC PCD Study Area during the period from 02 August
2012 to 01 August 2013 (Section II). Due to the reporting requirements that extend from
02 August 2012 to 01 August 2013, this report covers a time period that includes the
middle portion of the 2-year LOA, which covers the period from 21 January 2012 to 20
January 2014 (NMFS 2012). Primary focus over the first years of the U.S. Navy-wide
monitoring program has been on establishing initial monitoring efforts, refining data-
collection efforts, and overall organization and coordination of the monitoring program.
This report will focus on summarizing collected data and providing a brief description of
the major accomplishments from techniques used over the past year.
2. Continue the AMR process by providing an overview of monitoring initiatives and
presenting progress made toward development of a Strategic Plan for U.S. Navy-wide
monitoring. These initiatives continue to shape the evolution of the NSWC PCD Mission
Activities Monitoring Plan for 2014. Input and recommendations from the Scientific
Advisory Group (SAG) (e.g., SAG 2011) form a cornerstone of the Strategic Plan
development, reflecting input received from the scientific community and other
stakeholders. Section III provides an overview of the events that have prompted these
most recent adaptive management actions.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 5
II. NSWC PCD MISSION ACTIVITIES
The NSWC PCD Study Area includes military warning areas W-151 (includes Panama City
OPAREA), W-155 (includes Pensacola OPAREA), and W-470 (Figure 1), and additionally St.
Andrew Bay (Figure 2). The NSWC PCD RDT&E activities may be conducted anywhere within
the existing military warning areas and St. Andrew Bay from the mean high-water line (mean
high-tide mark) out to 222 kilometers (km) (120 nautical miles [nmi] offshore). RDT&E
activities are more fully described in the NSWC PCD Mission Activities Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (DON 2009).
Thirty species of marine mammals potentially occur in the NSWC PCD Study Area. These
species include whales, dolphins, and the manatee. Twenty-four species regularly occur here and
were evaluated in the NSWC PCD Mission Activities EIS/OEIS (DON 2009). All marine
mammals are afforded protection under the MMPA. Of the 24 common marine mammal species,
the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) and the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)
are also protected under the ESA. Additionally, five species of threatened or endangered sea
turtles can be found in the NSWC PCD Study Area: leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea),
loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). The distribution and
habitat preferences of these protected marine species are reviewed in the U.S. Navy’s Marine
Resources Assessment for the Gulf of Mexico (DON 2007).
NSWC PCD Mission Activities Monitoring Plan Accomplishments
NSWC PCD Study Questions Overview
The goal of the NSWC PCD Mission Activities Monitoring Plan is to implement field methods
chosen to address the long-term monitoring objectives outlined in Section I. In the NSWC PCD
Mission Activities Monitoring Plan (DON 2010a; Appendix B), the U.S. Navy proposed to
implement a variety of field methods to gather monitoring data on marine mammals and sea
turtles in the NSWC PCD Study Area. Specifically, the U.S. Navy proposed to conduct visual
surveys (aerial or vessel), to deploy PAM devices when possible, and to put MMOs aboard U.S.
Navy vessels to meet its monitoring requirements. Studies were specifically designed to address
the questions outlined in Section I. Table 1 shows the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 monitoring
commitments agreed upon by NMFS and the U.S. Navy.
Table 1. Monitoring Commitments under NSWC PCD Final Rule, LOA,
and BO for FY 2012-2014.
Monitoring Commitments FY 2013 Status
STUDY 1 (behavioral responses)
Aerial or Vessel Surveys 2 sonar activities and 2 explosive
events per year
Completed 3 sonar events; completed
2 explosive events
Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) 1 explosive event per year Completed 3 explosive events
STUDY 2 (mitigation effectiveness)
MMO/Lookout Comparison 1 explosive event per year MMOs completed 3 explosive events
Vessel or Aerial Surveys Before And
After Test Events
2 sonar activities and 2 explosive
events per year
Completed 3 sonar events; completed
2 explosive events
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 6
Fig
ure
1. N
SW
C P
CD
Stu
dy A
rea:
Gu
lf o
f M
exic
o.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 7
Fig
ure
2. N
SW
C P
CD
Stu
dy A
rea:
Nea
rsh
ore
an
d S
t. A
nd
rew
Bay.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 8
III. NSWC PCD MONITORING ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
During the 02 August 2012–01 August 2013 reporting period, NSWC PCD implemented the
Mission Activities Monitoring Plan as part of the third full year of monitoring since the January
2010 promulgation of the NSWC PCD Mission Activities LOA. Major accomplishments from
the 2012–2013 compliance monitoring in the NSWC PCD Study Area included the completion
of aerial surveys before, during, and after three sonar test events; and aerial surveys before,
during, and after two live-inert detonation test events. NSWC PCD also incorporated MMOs into
the AN/AQS-20A Mine Reconnaissance Sonar System (Q-20) sonar test events intermittently
from August 2012 through May 2013. No vessel or PAM surveys occurred in the reporting
period.
Monitoring During Test Events
Monitoring events are one of the primary components being used to address specific monitoring
questions posed in the NSWC PCD Mission Activities Monitoring Plan (Appendix B) and to
fulfill the requirements of the NMFS-issued LOA for 2012–2014 NSWC PCD mission activities
that involve underwater detonations, sonar systems, and projectile firing (NMFS 2012). NSWC
PCD conducted monitoring during three sonar test events: (1) the Q-20 sonar; (2) the Small
Synthetic Aperture Minehunter 2 (SSAM2) and Buried Object Scanning Sonar (BOSS); and (3)
the Remote Environmental Monitoring Units (REMUS) sonar during the reporting period. The
Q-20 sonar system is an HFAS mine-hunting system. The SSAM2 is a bottom-mapping and
mine-hunting sonar, while the BOSS images buried objects. The REMUS is an unmanned
undersea vehicle equipped with sonar. Additionally, NSWC PCD executed monitoring during
two tests of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), which included live-inert
detonations, in the NSWC PCD Study Area.
Aerial Surveys for Sonar Test Events
NSWC PCD conducted aerial monitoring surveys for three sonar test events: (1) the Q-20 sonar;
(2) the SSAM2 and BOSS; and (3) REMUS sonar during the reporting period. A summary of
survey effort and sightings is provided in Tables 2 through 4. Complete survey and sighting
details for the test events are included in Appendices C through E. Observers searched for and
subsequently recorded any observed cetacean and sea turtle species during pre-test, during-test,
and post-test monitoring for SSAM2 and BOSS test events and REMUS sonar system test
events. Only pre-test monitoring was conducted for Q-20 sonar system tests because the event
was cancelled due to adverse weather conditions for testing. No stranded or injured marine
mammals or sea turtles were observed during any of the aerial monitoring efforts.
Aerial monitoring for a Q-20 sonar test event was conducted 27 April through 02 May
2013 in good to fair sighting conditions, with all sightings made in Beaufort Sea States
(BSS) from 2 to 5. The monitoring included seven flights before the Q-20 sonar test event
(Appendix C). Observers visually surveyed 2,702 km (1,458 nmi) of systematic (on-
effort) trackline and 3,433 km (1,854 nmi) of total trackline (including the systematic
transects, cross-legs between transects, and circling for focal follows or species
identification [ID]) during 6 days for approximately 16.8 hours (hr) of total survey effort
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 9
(combined on- and off-effort). Only one cetacean sighting was recorded, a group of
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The cetacean sighting was made before Q-20
sonar test events. There were 39 sea turtle sightings, including 28 sightings of loggerhead
turtles, 1 sighting of a Kemp’s ridley turtle, and 10 sightings of unidentified hardshell
turtles. Sea turtle sightings included observations before Q-20 sonar test events. There
was also one sighting of a hammerhead shark (Sphyrna sp.). Focal follows to collect
behavioral data were attempted during one sighting with bottlenose dolphins before the
test event.
Table 2. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Observation
Summary for Q-20 Sonar Tests During April-May 2013 in the NSWC PCD Study Area.
Date
Distance
Surveyed
(km [nmi])1
Time
Surveyed
(hr)1
Cetacean
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual
Cetaceans Sighted
(n)
Sea
Turtle
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual Sea
Turtles Sighted
(n)
27 April 2013
(pre-test) 170 (92) 0.8 0 0 0 0
28 April 2013
(pre-test) 623 (336) 3.1 1 3 10 11
29 April 2013
(during-test) 484 (261) 2.4 0 0 10 10
30 April 2013
(pre-test) 311 (168) 1.5 0 0 4 4
01 May 2012
(pre-test) 389 (210) 2 0 0 5 5
02 May 2013
(pre-test) 391 (211) 2 0 0 4 4
02 May 2013
(pre-test) 334 (180) 1.6 0 0 6 6
Totals 2,702 (1,458) 13.4 1 3 39 40
Note: 1Values are rounded.
Aerial monitoring was conducted for a SSAM2 and BOSS test event from 22 through
28 June 2013 in good to fair sighting conditions, with all sightings made in BSS from
2 to 5. The monitoring included two flights before the SSAM2 and BOSS test event;
four flights during the SSAM2 and BOSS test event; and one flight after the SSAM2
and BOSS test event (Appendix D). Observers visually surveyed 3,565 km (1,925
nmi) of systematic (on-effort) trackline and 5,949 km (3,212 nmi) of total trackline
(including the systematic transects, cross-legs between transects, and circling for
focal follows or species ID) during 7 days for approximately 30.6 hr of total survey
effort (combined on- and off-effort). Thirty-one cetacean sightings were recorded,
including 28 sightings of bottlenose dolphins and 3 sightings of Atlantic spotted
dolphins (Stenella frontalis). Cetacean sightings included observations before and
during the SSAM2 and BOSS test events. There were 145 sea turtle sightings,
including 104 sightings of loggerhead turtles, 16 sightings of Kemp’s ridley turtles,
and 25 sightings of unidentified hardshell turtles. Sea turtle sightings included
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 10
observations before, during, and after SSAM2 and BOSS test events. There was also
1 sighting of a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) and 1 sighting of an unidentified ray.
Focal follows to collect behavioral data were attempted during 16 sightings including
2 with bottlenose dolphins before the test event; 3 with Atlantic spotted dolphins
during the test event; and 11 with bottlenose dolphins during the test event.
Table 3. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Observation Summary for SSAM and BOSS Sonar System Tests During June 2013 in the
NSWC PCD Study Area.
Date
Distance
Surveyed
(km [nmi])1
Time
Surveyed
(hr)1
Cetacean
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual
Cetaceans Sighted
(n)
Sea
Turtle
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual Sea
Turtles Sighted
(n)
22 June 2013
(pre-test) 548 (296) 2.8 5 25 23 25
23 June 2013
(pre-test) 553 (299) 2.9 1 2 18 19
24 June 2013
(during-test) 562 (303) 2.8 5 33 32 32
25 June 2013
(during-test) 418 (226) 2.1 7 45 26 26
26 June 2013
(during-test) 504 (272) 2.5 7 74 19 19
27 June 2013
(during-test) 504 (272) 2.5 6 31 22 22
28 June 2013
(post-test) 476 (257) 2.3 0 0 5 5
Totals 3,565 (1,925) 17.9 31 210 145 148
Note: 1Values are rounded.
Aerial monitoring was conducted for a REMUS sonar test event from 28 July through 01
August 2013 in good to fair sighting conditions, with all sightings made in BSS from 2 to
4. The monitoring included two flights before the REMUS sonar test event; one flight
during the REMUS sonar test event; and one flight after the REMUS sonar test event
(Appendix E). Observers visually surveyed 1,529 km (826 nmi) of systematic (on-effort)
trackline and 2,545 km (1,374 nmi) of total trackline (including the systematic transects,
cross-legs between transects, and circling for focal follows or species ID) during 4 days
for approximately 15.6 hr of total survey effort (combined on- and off-effort). Eight
cetacean sightings were recorded, including 6 sightings of bottlenose dolphins and
2 sightings of Atlantic spotted dolphins. Cetacean sightings included observations during
and after the REMUS sonar test event. There were 35 sea turtle sightings, including 15
sightings of loggerhead turtles, 9 sightings of Kemp’s ridley turtles, 6 sightings of
leatherback turtles, and 5 sightings of unidentified hardshell turtles. Sea turtle sightings
included observations before, during, and after the REMUS sonar test event. Focal
follows to collect behavioral data were attempted during 8 sightings, including 6 with
bottlenose dolphins and 2 with Atlantic spotted dolphins.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 11
Table 4. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Observation Summary for REMUS Sonar System Tests During July 2013 in the NSWC
PCD Study Area.
Date
Distance
Surveyed
(km [nmi])1
Time
Surveyed
(hr)1
Cetacean
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual
Cetaceans Sighted
(n)
Sea
Turtle
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual Sea
Turtles Sighted
(n)
28 July 2013
(pre-test) 459 (248) 3.4 0 0 3 3
29 July 2013
(pre-test) 553 (299) 3.0 1 2 13 13
30 July 2013
(during-test) 192 (104) 1.2 4 57 10 10
31 July 2013
(post-test) 325 (175) 1.8 3 73 9 9
Totals 1,529 (826) 9.3 8 132 35 35
Note: 1Values are rounded.
Aerial Surveys for Detonation Test Events
NSWC PCD conducted aerial monitoring surveys for two tests of the AMNS system during the
recording period. A summary of survey effort and sightings is provided in Table 5. Complete
survey and sighting details for the test events are included in Appendix F. Observers searched
for and subsequently recorded any present cetacean and sea turtle species during pre-test,
during-test, and post-test monitoring for the live-inert test events. No stranded or injured marine
mammals or sea turtles were observed during this aerial monitoring effort.
Aerial monitoring was conducted 07 through 16 October 2012 in good to poor
sighting conditions, with all sightings made in BSS from 2 to 4. The monitoring
included five flights before, during, and after the first AMNS test event; one flight
during an intermediate test event, which could not include monitoring before or after
the event; and four flights before, during, and after the second AMNS test event
(Appendix F). Observers visually surveyed 3,869 km (2,089 nmi) of systematic (on-
effort) trackline and 4,650 km (2,511 nmi) of total trackline (including the systematic
transects, cross-legs between transects, and circling for focal follows or species ID)
during 10 days for approximately 29.3 hr of total survey effort (combined on- and
off-effort). Nine sightings of cetaceans were recorded, including 6 sightings of
bottlenose dolphins and 3 sightings of unidentified dolphins that included 1 sighting
of possible Atlantic spotted dolphins. Cetacean sightings included observations
before, during, and after the AMNS test event. There were two sea turtle sightings,
both of unidentified hardshell turtles. Sea turtle sightings included observations made
during the AMNS test event. Focal-follow behavioral data were collected during 8
sightings: 5 with bottlenose dolphins before the first test event; 1 with an unidentified
dolphin during the first test event; 1 with unidentified dolphins after the first test
event; and 1 with bottlenose dolphins during the second test event.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 12
Table 5. On-Effort Visual Aerial Survey and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Observation Summary for AMNS System Tests Involving Detonations During October
2012 in the NSWC PCD Study Area.
Date
Distance
Surveyed
(km [nmi])1
Time
Surveyed
(hr)1
Cetacean
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual
Cetaceans Sighted
(n)
Sea
Turtle
Sightings
(n)
Total Number of
Individual Sea
Turtles Sighted
(n)
07 October 2012
(pre-first test) 336 (181) 2 0 0 0 0
08 October 2012
(pre-first test) 421 (227) 2.5 0 0 0 0
09 October 2012
(pre-first test) 330 (178) 2.1 5 87 0 0
10 October 2012
(during-first test) 779 (421) 5.6 1 21 0 0
11 October 2012
(post-first test) 480 (259) 2.4 2 13 0 0
12 October 2012
(during intermediate
event)
437 (236) 2.5 1 45 1 1
13 October 2012
(pre-second test) 317 (171) 1.9 0 0 0 0
14 October 2012
(pre-second test) 27 (15) 0.1 0 0 0 0
15 October 2012
(during-second test) 507 (274) 3.7 0 0 1 1
16 October 2012
(post-second test) 235 (127) 2.5 0 0 0 0
Totals 3,869 (2,089) 25.3 9 166 2 2
Note: 1Values are rounded.
NSWC PCD MMO Activities
U.S. Navy MMOs participated in 20 days of Q-20 sonar test events during NSWC PCD mission
activities that extended intermittently from 02 August 2012 through 23 May 2013, and in 13 days
of AMNS underwater detonation events during RDT&E activities that extended intermittently
from 10 October 2012 through 02 November 2012 and on 15 May 2013 and 17 May 2013.
MMOs conducted visual observations from the bridges of the vessels conducting sonar tests
involving Q-20 sonar and conducting underwater detonations in conjunction with AMNS tests.
Effort and environmental information was only collected when MMOs began observing (i.e.,
“on-effort”).
The MMOs spent more than 97.3 hr searching for marine species during sonar and underwater
detonation events. The number of observers during the on-effort hours depended on the vessel
size used to support the test event. Q-20 sonar activities on the Research Vessels (R/V) Athena I
and Athena II incorporated two MMOs; mine countermeasure operations used five small support
craft and incorporated six or seven MMOs. During detonation events, two MMOs were stationed
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 13
on the R/V Athena I and one or two MMOs were stationed on each of the smaller participating
vessels. The naval MMO effort comprised a total of just over 130.2 hr of shipboard monitoring
for protected marine species. For each day at sea, 1.03 to 10.6 hr were spent on-effort. Table 6
summarizes U.S. Navy MMO sighting data from the test events, while Appendix G provides
further details on those recorded sightings.
Table 6. U.S. Navy MMO Sighting Data from Sonar and Detonation Test Events in the
NSWC PCD Study Area.
Species Number of MMO Sightings Group Size
Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) 8 1-15
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 6 2-5
Unidentified dolphin 2 1
Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 1 1
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) 5 1
Unidentified hardshell turtle 9 1
Total 31 1-15
Note: *Detailed sighting information is included in Appendix G
U.S. Navy Lookout Effectiveness Study
The U.S. Navy undertakes monitoring of marine mammals during naval training and RDT&E
events and has mitigation procedures designed to minimize risk to these animals. One key
component of this monitoring and mitigation is the shipboard lookouts (LOs, also known as
watchstanders), who are part of the standard operating procedure that ships use to detect objects
(including marine mammals) within a specific area around the ship during events. The
watchstanders are an element of monitoring requirements specified by NMFS in the MMPA
LOAs. The goal is to detect marine mammals entering ranges of 200, 500, and 1,000 yards
around the vessel, which correspond to distances at which various mitigation actions should be
performed. In addition to the LOs, officers on the bridge search visually while sonar operators
listen for vocalizations. We refer to all of these observers together as the observation team (OT).
The aim of this study is to determine the OT effectiveness in terms of detecting and identifying
marine mammals. Of particular interest is the probability of an animal occurring within a defined
range of the vessel without being observed by the OT, as well as determining the accuracy of the
OT (primarily the LO) in identifying the species type (whale, dolphin, etc.), assessing group size,
and estimating their position. In order to achieve this, experienced MMOs search and collect
information on marine mammals that are detected by themselves and/or the OT. The annual
monitoring report for 2012 provided a review of the design and testing of a protocol for the
determining the effectiveness of the LOs in visually detecting marine mammals (DON 2012).
During the previous reporting period (2012), a new analysis method was developed and tested
that allows estimation of the probability of animals approaching to within a specified stand‐off
range without being detected (the “sneak‐up probability”) (DON 2012). With regards to the
lookout effectiveness study, a major accomplishment related to this project during the current
reporting period included revision of Marine Species Awareness Training.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 14
IV. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Originally, five study questions were developed between NMFS and the U.S. Navy as guidance
for developing monitoring plans, and all existing range-specific monitoring plans attempted to
address each of these study questions. However, the state of knowledge for the various U.S.
Navy Range Complexes is not equal, and many factors, including level of existing information,
amount of training activity, accessibility, and available logistics resources, all contribute to the
ability to perform particular monitoring activities. In addition, the U.S. Navy monitoring
program has historically been compartmentalized by Range Complex and focused on effort-
based metrics (survey days, trackline covered, etc.).
A 2010 U.S. Navy‐sponsored monitoring meeting in Arlington, Virginia initiated a process to
critically evaluate the current U.S. Navy monitoring plans and begin development of
revisions/updates to both existing region‐specific plans and the ICMP. Discussions at that
meeting, and at the U.S. Navy/NMFS annual adaptive management meeting in October 2010,
established a way forward for continued refinement of the U.S. Navy monitoring program. This
process included establishing a SAG composed of leading marine mammal scientists, with the
initial task of developing recommendations that would serve as the basis for a Strategic Planning
Process for marine species monitoring.
In June 2011, the U.S. Navy hosted a Marine Mammal Monitoring Workshop with guidance and
support from NMFS, which included scientific experts and representatives of environmental non‐governmental organizations (SAG 2011). The purpose of the workshop was to present a
consolidated overview of monitoring activities accomplished in 2009 and 2010 pursuant to the
MMPA Final Rules currently in place, including outcomes of selected monitoring‐related
research and lessons learned, and to seek feedback on future directions. A significant outcome of
this workshop was to continue consolidating monitoring efforts from individual Range Complex
plans in order to improve the return on investment by focusing on specific objectives and
projects that can most efficiently and effectively be addressed throughout the U.S. Navy’s Range
Complexes.
The SAG was established in 2011 with the initial task of evaluating current naval monitoring
approaches under the ICMP and existing LOAs to develop objective scientific recommendations
(SAG 2011). While recommendations were fairly broad from a geographic perspective, the SAG
did provide specific programmatic recommendations that serve as guiding principles for the
continued evolution of the U.S. Navy monitoring program. Notable keystone recommendations
from the SAG include:
Working within a conceptual framework of knowledge, from basic information on the
occurrence of species within each range complex, to more specific matters of exposure,
response, and consequences.
Striving to move away from a “box‐checking” mentality — monitoring studies should be
designed and conducted according to scientific objectives, rather than on merely
cataloging effort expended.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 15
Approaching the U.S. Navy monitoring program holistically and selecting projects that
offer the best opportunity to advance understanding of the issues, as opposed to
establishing range‐specific requirements.
Facilitating collaboration among researchers in each region, with the intent to develop a
coherent and synergistic regional monitoring and research effort.
In addition to broader programmatic and conceptual recommendations, the SAG evaluated each
range complex for a series of factors including level of U.S. Navy activity; diversity and density
of marine mammals; need for information on basic occurrence, presence of species of concern;
and ability to most effectively address questions related to exposure, response, and
consequences.
The objective of the Strategic Planning Process is to continue the evolution of U.S. Navy
protected marine species monitoring towards a single integrated program, incorporating expert
review and recommendations, and establishing a more transparent framework for evaluating and
implementing monitoring work across the U.S. Navy Range Complexes and study areas. The
Strategic Planning Process is intended to be a primary component of the ICMP and to provide a
“vision” for U.S. Navy monitoring across geographic regions—serving as guidance for
determining how to most efficiently and effectively invest the marine species monitoring
resources to address ICMP top‐level goals and satisfy MMPA LOA regulatory requirements.
The Strategic Planning Process has five major implementation steps:
Identify overarching intermediate scientific objectives
Develop individual monitoring project concepts
Evaluate, prioritize, and select monitoring projects
Execute selected monitoring projects
Report and evaluate progress and results.
These steps serve three primary purposes: 1) to facilitate the U.S. Navy in developing specific
projects addressing one or more intermediate scientific objectives; 2) to establish a more
structured and collaborative framework for developing, evaluating, and selecting monitoring
projects across all areas where the U.S. Navy conducts training and testing activities; and 3) to
maximize the opportunity for input and involvement across the research community, academia,
and industry.
This Strategic Planning Process will serve as the single marine species monitoring requirement
for all U.S. Navy testing and training activities under the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
(AFTT) MMPA LOA, which will supersede the current LOAs for Atlantic Fleet Active Fleet
Sonar Testing and East Coast and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes beginning in 2014. This
process includes mission activities conducted in the NSWC PCD Study Area. Along with the
ICMP, it clearly identifies the goals and objectives of the U.S. Navy monitoring program,
presents the guidance and expert review that will be used to direct efforts, and defines the
process for evaluating and selecting how the U.S. Navy monitoring program budget is invested.
Future NSWC PCD protected marine species monitoring will be aligned to the requirements of
the AFTT MMPA LOA. Monitoring commitments are still to be determined.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 16
V. LIST OF PREPARERS
Carmen Ferrer
Environmental Branch Head
NSWC PCD
Beth Branham
Oceanographer/Ranges and Facilities Branch
NSWC PCD
Jennifer N. Latusek-Nabholz
Project Manager and Technical Reviewer
HDR EOC
Dagmar Fertl
Author
HDR EOC
Dan Engelhaupt, PhD
Program Manager
HDR EOC
Christopher McJetters
Technical Editor
HDR EOC
Cheryl Myers
Document Formatting and Production
HDR EOC
Robert D. Kenney, PhD
Technical Reviewer
University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 17
VI. REFERENCES
Burt, M.L., and L. Thomas. 2010. Calibrating U.S. Navy Lookout Observer Effectiveness:
Information for Marine Mammal Observers, Version 2.1. Department of the Navy, Naval
Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, Rhode Island.
Department of the Navy (DON). 2007. Marine Resources Assessment for the Gulf of Mexico.
Department of the Navy, Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia.
DON. 2009. Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) Mission
Activities Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement (OEIS). NSWC PCD, Panama City, Florida.
DON. 2010a. Final Monitoring Plan for Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Authorization,
Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC-PCD). Prepared for
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
DON. 2010b. United States Navy Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program. 2010 Update.
U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division, Washington,
D.C.
DON. 2012. Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report for the Naval Surface Warfare Center
Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) Study Area 2012. Submitted to National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. Letter of Authorization for U.S. Navy (Navy)
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) activities conducted in the Naval
Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) Study Area in the Gulf of
Mexico (GOM). Period 21 January 2010 through 20 January 2011. Issued 21 January
2010. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
NMFS. 2012. Letter of Authorization for U.S. Navy (Navy) Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) activities conducted in the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama
City Division (NSWC PCD) Study Area in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Period 21
January 2012 through 20 January 2014. Issued 21 January 2012. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Scientific Advisory Group (SAG). 2011. Scientific Advisory Group for Navy Marine Species
Monitoring: Workshop Report and Recommendations.
NSWC PCD 2013 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report
September 2013 18
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
top related